E) Other measures of reparation requested a) Adaptation of domestic law in relation to the Counter-terrorism Act 455. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to “[a]dapt the anti-terrorist legislation embodied in Law 18,314, so that it is compatible with the principle of legality recognized in Article 9 of the American Convention,” and indicated that the 2010 reform of the Counter-terrorism Act did not entail a substantial modification that made it compatible with this article, because it was a structural change that kept the identical wording to the previous version, and that the changes were merely in phrases and connecting words used to unite the three hypotheses relating to the terrorist intent. 456. The FIDH asked that the Court order the “repeal of Law 18,314” or, “[s]ubsidiarily,” its adaptation “and that of other domestic laws to international standards,” and indicated that it shared the Commission’s opinion that the amendments to Law No. 18,314 had not been substantive as regards the principle of legality. CEJIL requested “the adaptation of the legal framework applicable to cases of presumed terrorist acts to the standards of international human rights law,” and recognized the progress made by the amendments to the Counterterrorism Act insofar as the legal presumption of terrorist intent had been eliminated and the non-applicability of this law to minors had been established. Nevertheless, it considered that the obstacles as regards international standards had not been overcome, “especially [those related to] the definition of the offenses included in the law.” 457. The State indicated that, in 2010, a reform of the Counter-terrorism Act was approved in which its articles 1 and 2 were amended, eliminating the presumption of terrorist intent and the applicability of this law to minors. It indicated that “[t]he definition of terrorist offense […] complies with the principle of legality” and that “[t]here are no references in this law that could lead to an erroneous interpretation of the offense by either the general population or the courts of justice.” 458. The Court has determined that the State maintained in force a criminal norm included in the Counter-terrorism Act that was contrary to the principle of legality and the principle of the presumption of innocence, as indicated in paragraphs 168 to 177. This norm was applied to the victims in this case to determine their criminal responsibility as authors of terrorist offenses and, consequently, the Court found that Chile had violated the principle of legality in criminal matters (Article 9) and the principle of the presumption of innocence (Article 8(2)), in relation to the obligation to respect and ensure rights (Article 1(1)) and the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions (Article 2), to the detriment of Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, all in the terms established in this Judgment. 459. The Court notes that the case file reveals that, under Law No. 20,467,439 the legal presumption of terrorist intent that was applied to the presumed victims in this case was eliminated. Since it has been proved by the State that the said provision is not in force, it is not necessary to order a measure concerning the adaptation of domestic law on this specific point. The Court will not make abstract considerations on Chilean laws in relation to the current definition of offenses contained in the Counter-terrorism Act. The fact that, when ruling on the merits, the Court did not consider it pertinent to analyze, in this case, other alleged violations derived from the regulation of other aspects of the subjective element of the definition of the 439 Cf. Law No. 20,467 of October 8, 2010, which “[a]mends provisions of Law No.18,314 that define terrorist acts and establish the corresponding punishments” (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 2, folios 12 to 15, file of annexes to the CEJIL motions and arguments brief, annex B.1.3, folios 1759 to 1774, file of annexes to the FIDH motions and arguments brief, annex 32, folios 883 to 1309, and file of annexes to the answering brief of the State, annex 4, folios 84 to 87). 148